↓ Skip to main content

“Best practices in risk reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy: the influence of surgical specialty”

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
“Best practices in risk reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy: the influence of surgical specialty”
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12957-017-1282-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dominique R. Malacarne, Leslie R. Boyd, Yang Long, Stephanie V. Blank

Abstract

Risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (RRBSO) increases survival in patients at high risk of developing ovarian cancer. While many general gynecologists perform this procedure, some argue it should be performed exclusively by specialists. In this retrospective observational study, we identified how often optimal techniques were used and whether surgeons' training impacted implementation. We used the ACOG guidelines highlighting various aspects of the procedure to determine which elements were consistent with best practices to maximize surgical prophylaxis. All cases of RRBSO from 2006 to 2010 were identified. We abstracted data from the operative and pathology reports to review the techniques employed. Fisher's exact test and chi-square were utilized to compare differences between groups (InStat, La Jolla, CA). Among 263 RRBSOs, 22 were performed by general gynecologists and 241 by gynecologic oncologists. Gynecologic oncologists were more likely to perform pelvic washings-217/241 vs. 10/22 (p < .0001). They were more likely to include a description of the upper abdomen-220/241 vs. 12/22 (p < .0001). Oncologists were more likely to utilize a retroperitoneal approach to skeletonize the infundibulopelvic ligaments-157/241 vs. 3/22 (p < .0001). When operations were performed by oncologists, the specimens were more often completely sectioned-217/241 vs. 16/22 (p = .003). The use of a retroperitoneal approach among gynecologic oncologists increased over the study period (chi-square for trend, p < .0001). There was no visible trend in performance improvement in any other area when looking at either group. Gynecologic oncologists are more likely to adhere to best practice techniques when performing RRBSO, though there was room for improvement for both groups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 12%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 6 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Unknown 8 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 December 2017.
All research outputs
#13,060,351
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#333
of 2,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,385
of 439,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgical Oncology
#5
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,054 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,919 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.